Kamal v The Home Office

Immigration detention pending deportation is lawful only while the Hardial Singh principles remain satisfied. The Secretary of State must intend to deport, detain for no longer than is reasonable, maintain a realistic prospect of removal, and act with reasonable diligence and expedition.

Risk of absconding and reoffending are important considerations, but neither automatically determines the outcome. A finite removal date is unnecessary if there is a sufficient realistic prospect of removal. The assessment is fact-sensitive and includes the detainee’s co-operation with documentation arrangements, the obstacles to removal, and the Secretary of State’s conduct.

The claimant challenged his detention by the Home Office from 27 August 2012 until his deportation to the Kurdistan Region of Iraq on 7 May 2013. He alleged breaches of the Hardial Singh principles, the detention policy in Chapter 55.10 of the Enforcement Instructions and Guidance, and Article 5(1)(f) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The central issues were whether detention for eight months and ten days was reasonable, whether there remained a realistic prospect of removal throughout, and whether the Home Office acted with reasonable diligence and expedition, particularly while the claimant participated in the Facilitated Return Scheme.

1. The claim was dismissed. The court held that principles 2, 3 and 4 of the Hardial Singh framework were satisfied throughout the detention.
2. The claimant’s detention for eight months and ten days was reasonable in all the circumstances. Relevant considerations included the length of detention, the obstacles to obtaining travel documentation, the Home Office’s conduct, the claimant’s lack of community ties, his previous convictions, and his behaviour in detention. The risk of absconding and reoffending remained sufficiently significant to justify continued detention, notwithstanding his stated wish to return to Iraq.
3. A finite removal date was not required. There was a realistic prospect of removal throughout. Deportation was considered promptly, the claimant initially engaged with the Facilitated Return Scheme, and the Home Office later obtained confirmation from the Kurdistan Regional Government that he could be returned.
4. The obligation to pursue the emergency travel document remained with the Home Office, although the claimant was required under the return scheme to assist with obtaining identity and nationality information. The limited activity between November 2012 and February 2013 did not amount to a lack of diligence, because the accepted evidence established that the relevant process required further information to be sought from the claimant before the Kurdistan Regional Government was approached.
5. The policy and Article 5 arguments added nothing to the application of the Hardial Singh principles. The claim therefore failed.